Why Pepperdine banned dances
Social dancing was prohibited at Pepperdine for over fifty years, but now the university sponsors dances every year. So what changed? And why was dancing banned in the first place?
Firing a friend
From its founding in 1937, George Pepperdine College did not allow dancing. The ban was taken so seriously that an early member of the religion faculty was dismissed for hosting a dance in his home.
William Reedy was George Pepperdine's personal friend and minister, and he served on the religion faculty in the college's first year. Like Mr. Pepperdine, Reedy was a member of the Churches of Christ, but he disagreed with some of the brethren about the ethics of social dancing. Reedy believed that there was good dancing and bad dancing, determined in large part by the attitudes of the dancer.1 He had no qualms about allowing young people to dance in his home, which he did on at least one occasion in March 1938.2
When the college's board of trustees got word of "Reedy giving dances in his home," they had questions.3 Reedy was willing to abide by the college's prohibition, but he refused to alter his view that not all such dancing was wrong.4 Consequently, the board—under chairman George Pepperdine—suspended Reedy from his position. He never taught at Pepperdine again, and he eventually left the Churches of Christ altogether.5
The Reedy matter shows how far the college was willing to go to enforce its prohibition on dancing in the early years. It's interesting, though, that the first party affected by the policy was a member of the faculty, especially because it would later be students who opposed the ban so ardently.
The dancing debates
The prohibition on dancing was part of a larger set of policies put in place at the college's founding to encourage Christian living. George Pepperdine and the first administration all wanted the school to be a "workshop on Christian living," a motif that appears repeatedly in early discussions of the founder's vision for the institution. In part, that meant bans on drinking, dancing, gambling, and cursing.6
In the early years, students didn't much seem to mind living under the prohibition. In fact, some of them strongly opposed social dancing. Student Hoyt Houchen repeatedly denounced dancing in the pages of The Graphic, blaming it for a number of social ills and scouring his Bible for prooftexts on carousing and revelry.7
Not all his classmates agreed, but even those who doubted the validity of Houchen's arguments were careful to clarify that they didn't oppose the college's prohibition—just Houchen's hot takes.8
Some dancing allowed
Although social dancing was banned in the early years, other forms of dance came to be allowed. Students performed choreographed dances in theatrical productions as early as 1943,9 and they attended ballets in LA as early as 1945.10
It's hard to know whether these liberties are best understood as departures from an original hardline policy or whether the prohibition always targeted some kinds of dancing and not others. While it's true that the college was liberalizing in the 1940s, it remained under mostly the same leadership as had dismissed William Reedy in 1939: George Pepperdine remained the chair of the board, and Hugh Tiner (dean during the Reedy matter) was president.
Some contemporaries regarded Pepperdine as too lax in its attitude toward dancing. In 1948, the Bible Banner, a Church of Christ journal, chided Pepperdine for holding a class on folk dancing and featuring a square dance in a school-sponsored play. The author of the piece was O. L. Castleberry, a local minister who feared that if Pepperdine didn't tighten its restriction on dancing it would "wreck the faith and hurt the church to the extent of its influence, which is great."11
Perhaps in part due to the influence of such criticism, Pepperdine's prohibition on social dancing continued through the presidency of Norvel Young (1957-1970), who valued highly the school's relationship with the Churches of Christ.
President caught dancing
The first serious challenge to the ban came in 1974, when president William Banowsky was seen dancing at an event associated with the university. Pepperdine had been chosen to administer the prestigious Tyler Ecology Award, which was announced for the first time at a glitzy gala in LA featuring a speech by California governor Ronald Reagan as well as champagne and dancing. President Banowsky, who emceed the event, partook of the dancing.12
Students were quick to note the double-standard. Graphic editor Jack Mulkey called the event "obviously in conflict with the university's policies for its own students,"13 and an editorial asked the administration to "reevaluate its stand on dancing."14 Inner View, the student newspaper for the LA campus, asked whether Pepperdine was selling out its principles for the $40,000 raised at the event.15
The administration responded by pointing out that the event was sponsored not by the university but by an affiliated group called "Patrons of Pepperdine," led by Alice Tyler, whose name was on the award.16 Still, administrators must have felt the force of the students' arguments because president Banowsky asked the board to repeal the ban. He wasn't able to persuade Helen Pepperdine, the founder's widow, so the ban remained in force. Even so, there was still dancing at the second annual Tyler Award dinner in 1975.17
Preserving the church relationship
Banowsky's dancing was not, as students claimed, a clear-cut case of hypocrisy on the part of the president. In fact, Banowsky had tried to remove the prohibition from the student handbook in 1973, but he faced significant pushback from staff in the student life office including Steven Lemley and Bob Thomas. Lemley wrote a pointed memo to the president, arguing that repealing the prohibition would be "a mistake from a church-relations standpoint."18 Dean of student life Bob Thomas asked for further guidance from the president and, receiving none, kept the prohibition in the handbook for the 1973-1974 academic year.19
At a faculty meeting a year later, Banowsky polled the faculty about the possibility of removing the dancing prohibition, prompting a series of letters from concerned colleagues. Religion professor Carl Mitchell warned that allowing dancing would strain relations with the Churches of Christ,20 and Spanish professor Bill Stivers appealed to the founder's opinion: "Pepperdine University does not belong to this trimester's students, this trimester's faculty, nor this trimester's administration. [...] Some may feel that we should break completely with the church and go on our merry way as many universities in this country have done. This, of course, was not Mr. Pepperdine's idea."21
Banowsky's interest in the dancing question may have been motivated by his personal beliefs, but it was probably also a result of pressure from donors. Banowsky relied on the business community to finance the university's rapid expansion in the early 70s, and although many donors favored conservative politics, their ideas were not always aligned with those of the Churches of Christ on social issues.
For instance, Richard Ralphs, operator of Ralphs grocery stores, had teamed up with drug-store magnate Leonard Straus to fund construction of the Ralphs-Straus Tennis Center on the Malibu campus. Mr. Ralphs supported Pepperdine but couldn't understand its prohibition on dancing. He was embarrassed by a Los Angeles Times story that portrayed the university as "an almost backward kind of institution, stressing strange social prohibitions like no dancing, no drinking, and no smoking."22
Banowsky had the unenviable job of trying to appease these feuding parties. On the one hand, students and donors thought dancing should be allowed. On the other hand, the church constituency, represented by the Board, many influential faculty members, and some administrators, insisted that dancing remain prohibited.
The primary argument against dancing was that the prohibition was necessary to maintain the school's affiliation with the founder's faith tradition, the Churches of Christ. Religion division chair Carl Mitchell wrote to the editor of The Graphic to warn that ending the prohibition on dancing "would break what is left of an already weakened tie with Churches of Christ."23
Only secondarily did opponents of dancing attempt to justify the ban for its own sake. Hubert Derrick, a member of the board who also served as tennis coach and Spanish professor, tried to demonstrate that the prohibition didn't derive from "a desire to be dictatorial in any puritanical sense," but from genuine beliefs about what was in the students' own interest.24 To the prohibition's supporters, giving in to the students' demands would have meant conforming to the worldly pattern instead of maintaining Pepperdine's distinctive spiritual mission. As Steven Lemley put it, "Most of what is passing for majority opinion within the college [...] is not really directed to the fulfillment of the Christian purposes of the institution. Rather, there seems to be an embarrassed attempt to bring us into conformity with popular culture."25
Asking for answers
With Banowsky in this crucible, things came to a head again in 1977 when a student petition sporting nearly a thousand signatures asked the board to repeal the prohibition or at least explain why they wouldn't. The petition was accompanied by a short (and appallingly written) report arguing that dancing on campus would enliven the social scene and give clubs a new way to raise funds.26
Why did students think they would get a different answer, just three years after the board had voted to uphold the ban? Because it was no longer the same board. In the intervening years, president Banowsky had undertaken a radical restructuring of the university as a legal entity, replacing the original Board of Trustees instituted by George Pepperdine with a new Board of Regents. Put simply, Banowsky opened the board to donors like Richard Ralphs who were not members of the Churches of Christ, which was not permitted under the original bylaws. Under the amended bylaws, up to 40 percent (later 49 percent) of members could come from outside the founder's faith tradition, including now-familiar names like Leonard Firestone, George Elkins, and Morris Pendleton.27
With the new board in place, opponents of the prohibition hoped things would be different. To their chagrin, the board referred the question to the Religious Standards Committee, a standing committee made up of all the regents belonging to the Churches of Christ, most of whom had been members of the recently dissolved board of trustees. So the question would be decided by many of the same people who had rejected dancing in 1974.
Opposing the student petition was a letter signed by 19 members of the faculty, including Carl Mitchell, Frank Pack, James Smythe, Stephen Davis, Stanley Warford, and future provost Steven Lemley. The letter argued that Pepperdine's peer institutions had similar bans on dancing, and that permitting dancing would risk damaging the university's relationship with the Churches of Christ.28
In the end, the board agreed to a compromise, allowing student groups to organize dances off campus but upholding the traditional prohibition on campus.29 Students celebrated their new freedom as soon as possible, with 600 attending the first dance in the university's history, hosted by the brothers of Sigma Epsilon at the Miramar hotel in Santa Monica in the fall of 1977. By all accounts, the event was an "orderly" and "professional" affair.30
Students continued to plan off-campus dances through the remainder of the 70s and into the 80s, but it didn't take long for the character of the events to change. The same Sig Eps that hosted the first dance in 1977 were busted for alcohol infractions at a number of dances between 1980 and 1992, when their charter was finally revoked.31 And in 1988 a Malibu DJ working under the stage name Moon-Pup was caught "mooning" students at a dance hosted by the sisters of Delta Tau Omega at the Hyatt Regency.32
As the 1980s rolled around, students weren't satisfied with just dancing off campus. They would continue pushing for a total repeal of the prohibition against dancing on campus.
Another vote
In March 1983, dancing was such an important issue among students that junior Liz Whatley won the race for president of the Student Government Association by promising to fight for the right to dance on campus.33 But Whatley quickly ran into some opposition. President Howard White was not nearly as enthusiastic about the prospect of on-campus dances as had been his predecessor William Banowsky. White and Sara Jackson, then the director of campus life, both feared that allowing dancing on campus would put Pepperdine outside of the mainstream of colleges affiliated with the Churches of Christ, a view also shared by David Davenport, then the minister at the University Church of Christ.34
Students had some success, however, in questioning whether Pepperdine's fears about its sister schools were justified. Student journalist Reid Sams repeatedly interviewed representatives from other Church of Christ schools who said their relationship with Pepperdine would not be affected by a change in the dancing policy at Malibu, even if they disagreed with it. Administrators from Columbia Christian College, Abilene Christian University, and David Lipscomb College all agreed that Pepperdine's policies were its own business.35 And students from the sister schools mostly agreed, including student-body presidents Brad Cheves of Abilene Christian and Tim Perrin of Lubbock Christian College. The strongest objection came from a student at Harding University in Searcy, Arkansas, who found the "liberal" Pepperdine "not up to [his] moral standards."36
At its December 1983 meeting, the Board of Regents rejected the SGA's proposal to allow dancing on campus. But the tenor of their reasons had changed. Not only was dancing not the black and white moral issue it had been during the Reedy matter, it wasn't even a question of the school's relationship with the Churches of Christ, as it had been in the 70s. Instead, the Board explained their decision with reference to fears of gate-crashing and alcohol abuse and the belief that on-campus facilities weren't well-suited for hosting dances.37 The prohibition had survived another challenge, but its justifications were as weak as they had ever been.
Ending the prohibition
In the 70s and 80s, the student handbook officially forbade dancing on campus, but that didn't mean the policy was always enforced. In 1979, there was a disco in dorm 16 (today's DeBell House), featuring a live band and dancing. The yearbook preserves pictures of students on campus boogying down, but The Graphic makes no mention of any blowback from the administration.38
Administrators did investigate reports of dancing at a rock concert in Smothers Theatre in October 1983. Executive vice president David Davenport called on SGA president Liz Whatley and director of campus life Sara Jackson to explain reports in The Graphic of students dancing in the aisles at the on-campus event, though neither woman had been present to witness the dancing. Ultimately, the incident was resolved without discipline, as Davenport determined the concert did not constitute the "social dancing" prohibited by the university.39
It was in this relatively lax environment that the prohibition was finally repealed by a vote of the board in 1988, following yet another effort by the SGA, this time led by president Chris Battista.40 A first experimental back-to-school dance was held that fall in the dining room of the Tyler Campus Center. An editorial in The Graphic reported 1,100 well-behaved students in attendance, touting the event as proof that students could comport themselves respectably.41 The students must have passed the test because further dances were held on campus in the early 90s.
Today, social dances continue to be held on campus. President Jim Gash has continued Benton-era traditions like the annual "Rock the Brock" and "President's Reception" (formerly called "My Tie") dances hosted at the Brock House. In the 85 years that have passed since William Reedy was fired for hosting a dance, the university has come to think of dancing in more or less the same terms he did.
All this dancing hasn't exactly distanced Pepperdine from its Church of Christ roots as was once feared. Sister school Abilene Christian University even moved to allow dances in 2012, though others have maintained their prohibitions.42
Does dancing matter?
A history such as this one runs the risk of making the dancing question seem more important than it really is. Certainly, the reporters at the Los Angeles Times could see little else when considering a school like Pepperdine, with its seemingly anachronistic social proscriptions.
But, while I've played up the conflict for the sake of the story, combatants on both sides of the long fight over dancing were perfectly capable of keeping a healthy perspective. In 1975, president Bill Banowsky, who wanted to allow dancing, told a student reporter that the school's list of "do's and don'ts" were "secondary and transitory concerns," and his executive vice president Howard White, who opposed dancing, agreed: "As important as the rules are, they are not the essence of a Christian institution or of Christian philosophy."43
But even if the dancing question isn't itself at the heart of what it means to be a Christian university, it provides a window into decades of well-meaning people wrestling with how to balance a commitment to the institution's traditional faith heritage with the shifting expectations of its young students and a world that didn't understand. In the words of Pepperdine historian David Baird, "the single most perplexing issue Pepperdine officials confronted as they built a co-curriculum [...] was how the denominational witness of the Churches of Christ played itself out."44
Batsell Baxter and Hugh M. Tiner, "Memorandum," 16 Sept. 1938, reproduced in Minutes, Board of Trustees, vol. 1, p. 61, Pepperdine University Board of Regents Records, Pepperdine University Special Collections.
William P. Reedy to Batsell Baxter, 15 July 1938, reproduced in Minutes, Board of Trustees, vol. 1, pp. 58-59, Pepperdine University Board of Regents Records, Pepperdine University Special Collections.
Minutes for 14 Sept. 1938, Board of Trustees, vol. 1, p. 55, Pepperdine University Board of Regents Records, Pepperdine University Special Collections.
William P. Reedy to Batsell Baxter, 15 Sept. 1938, reproduced in Minutes, Board of Trustees, vol. 1, p. 60, Pepperdine University Board of Regents Records, Pepperdine University Special Collections.
Maurine Reedy Ruzek, "A Personal Account of the Life of George Pepperdine," Oct. 2003, George Pepperdine Collection [digital resource], Pepperdine University Special Collections and University Archives; see also William P. and Jessie T. Reedy, "Why We Have Changed Fellowships," West Coast Christian, 8 (May-June 1945).
George Pepperdine College Student's Handbook, Sept. 1938: 11.
Hoyt Houchen, "Spiritual Food," The Graphic, 8 Dec. 1937: 2; "Is It Wrong To Dance?" The Graphic, 11 Apr. 1940: 2; Hoyt Houchen, "Should A Christian Dance?" The Graphic, 18 Apr. 1940: 2; Hoyt Houchen, "Think on These Things," The Graphic, 25 Apr. 1940: 3.
Ray Simpson, "Letter To The Editor," The Graphic, 18 Apr. 1940: 2.
See descriptions of the play What a Life put on in April 1943: "Spring Play Cast Announced," The Graphic, 16 Apr. 1943: 4; cf. "'What A Life' To Feature Ed Ross As Henry Aldrich," The Graphic, 28 Apr. 1943: 1, 4.
Evelyn Wingard, "The Town Crier," The Graphic, 30 Nov. 1945: 2.
O.L. Castleberry, "Is George Pepperdine College Sound?," Bible Banner, Mar. 1948, pp. 1-4; cf. David Baird, "The Church Challenges," Quest for Distinction, Pepperdine University Press, 2016: 74-75.
See tweet from Jack Mulkey; cf. unsigned editorial, "Inconsistent," Inner View, 15 Feb. 1974: 4, which notes that "a University official participated in dancing at the dinner."
Jack Mulkey, "Dinner spotlights Tyler recipients", The Graphic, 15 Feb. 1974: 1.
Unsigned editorial, "Inconsistent" Inner View, 15 Feb. 1974: 4.
Howard White, "Tyler dinner," Inner View, 15 Feb. 1974: 4.
Ken Murray, "Ecologist receives $150,000 prize at annual Tyler awards dinner," Inner View, Feb. 14 1975: 3.
Steven Lemley to Dr. Banowsky, 12 Jan. 1973, Dancing file, Box 9, William S. Banowsky Papers, Pepperdine University Special Collections.
Bob Thomas to Dr. Banowsky, 25 Jan. 1973, Dancing file, Box 9, William S. Banowsky Papers, Pepperdine University Special Collections; cf. Pepperdine University Malibu Student Handbook, 1973-1974: 51.
Carl Mitchell to Bill [Banowsky], 16 Jan. 1974, Dancing file, Box 9, William S. Banowsky Papers, Pepperdine University Special Collections.
William Stivers to William S. Banowsky, 23 Jan. 1974, Dancing file, Box 9, William S. Banowsky Papers, Pepperdine University Special Collections.
Richard Ralphs to M. Norvel Young and William S. Banowsky, 2 Oct. 1972, Dancing file, Box 9, William S. Banowsky Papers, Pepperdine University Special Collections; the article Ralphs had read was probably "Pepperdine to Open 490-Acre Malibu Campus," Los Angeles Times, 4 Sept. 1972: II-1.
Carl Mitchell, "Dancing will sever church ties," The Graphic, 18 Mar. 1977: 6.
H.G. Derrick, "Dancing may destroy spirit," The Graphic, 19 May 1977: 4.
Steven Lemley, "Schools and rights to guide," The Graphic, 25 Mar. 1977: 8.
Student Grievance Committee, "Mini-Report on Formal Dancing," 1977, Dancing on Campus file, Box 5, Shirley Roper Papers, Pepperdine University Special Collections.
David Baird, "Chancellor Young's Struggle", Quest for Distinction, Pepperdine University Press, 2016: 356.
Carl Mitchell et al. to Religious Standards Committee, 3 Mar. 1977, Dancing on Campus file, Box 5, Shirley Roper Papers, Pepperdine University Special Collections.
Julio Moran, "Regents veto on-campus dancing," The Graphic, 23 June 1977: 1.
Patricia Mazza, "Historical first dance attracts 600 students," The Graphic, 22 Sept. 1977: 1.
Unsigned timeline, "A brief history of Sigma Epsilon," The Graphic, 13 Feb. 1992: A3.
Daniel Zuber, "Moonlight Harvest eclipsed by jockey," The Graphic, 3 Nov. 1988: A1; see also Moon-Pup's apology in a letter to the editor on p. A4.
Jill Richmond, "Two candidates vie for presidency in Monday's election," The Graphic, 17 Mar. 1983: A3; cf. Tammy Clarke, "Whatley wins runoff; becomes second woman president," The Graphic, 7 Apr. 1983: A1, A8.
Reid Sams, "Dancing: Will it ever be allowed on campus?," The Graphic, 7 Apr. 1983: A2-A3.
Reid Sams, "Dancing: Will it ever be allowed on campus?," The Graphic, 7 Apr. 1983: A2.
Reid Sams, "Pepperdine sparks range of intra-church responses," The Graphic, 9 Feb. 1984: A4.
Teri Bruce, "University votes down SGA dancing proposal," The Graphic, 26 Jan. 1984: A2, A8.
Unsigned feature, "parties enhance dorm life," Impressions 1978: 146-149. Disco on campus may have started in 1978. See Kelley Creller, "Organizers credited," The Graphic, 16 Feb. 1978: 8; cf. Paul Serchia, "Disco tunes spin at dances," The Graphic, 9 Feb. 1978: 2.
Unsigned editorial, "Social dancing not the issue behind theater regulations," The Graphic, 9 Feb. 1984: A4.
Unsigned editorial, "DiBattista praised for job well done," The Graphic, 23 Mar. 1989: 5.
Unsigned editorial, "Board of regents takes one giant dance step," The Graphic, 29 Sept. 1988: A4.
Staff reports, "ACU revises long-held policy prohibiting dancing at events," The Christian Chronicle, 1 Apr. 2012.
Lee Ann Park, "Christian University: What is it? Why is it?" Oasis, 1974-1975: 2-5.
David Baird, "Co-curricular activities," Pepperdine in the 20th Century: A History, vol. 2 (unpublished): 260.
Fascinating history, Sam! I look forward to future installments!
(I was especially surprised by the unexpected appearance of "junior Liz Whatley" as SGA president—whom I presume to be = THE Elizabeth Whatley?)